| → we now see everywhere around us, and which 1859 1860 |
| OMIT 1861 1866 1869 1872 |
|
| → seems to me 1859 1860 |
| is 1861 1866 |
| under what is called the Natural System, is 1869 1872 |
|
| → make more strictly correct, 1859 |
| make truer, 1860 1861 1866 1869 |
| confirm, 1872 |
|
| ↑ 1 blocks not present in 1859 1860 1861; present in 1866 1869 1872 |
| We can see why throughout nature the same general end is gained by an almost infinite diversity of means;
for every peculiarity when once acquired is long inherited, and structures already diversified
in many ways
have to be adapted for the same general purpose.
|
|
| → woodpecker, should have been created to 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869 |
| a woodpecker, should 1872 |
|
| → have been created with 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869 |
| possess 1872 |
|
| → thrush should have been created to 1859 1860 1861 1866 |
| thrush-like bird should have been created to 1869 |
| thrush-like bird should 1872 |
|
| → been created with 1859 1860 1861 1866 1869 |
| the 1872 |
|
|
forms; so that each large group tends to become still larger, and at the same time more divergent in character. But as all groups cannot thus
increasing in size, for the world would not hold them, the more dominant groups beat the less dominant. This tendency in the large groups to go on increasing in size and diverging in character, together with the
inevitable contingency of much extinction, explains the arrangement of all the forms of
in groups subordinate to groups, all within a few great classes, which
→we now see everywhere around us, and which
has prevailed throughout all time. This grand fact of the grouping of all organic beings
→seems to me
utterly inexplicable on the theory of creation. |
|
| As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden
it can act only by
short and slow steps.
the canon of "Natura non facit saltum," which every fresh addition to our knowledge tends to
→make more strictly correct,
is on this theory
intelligible. ↑
We
see why nature is prodigal in variety, though niggard in innovation. But why this should be a law of nature if each species
been
created, no man can explain. |
|
| Many other facts are, as it seems to me, explicable on this theory. How strange it is that a bird, under the form of
→woodpecker, should have been created to
prey on insects on the ground; that upland
which
or
swim, should
→have been created with
webbed feet; that a
→thrush should have been created to
dive and feed on sub-aquatic insects; and that a petrel should have
→been created with
and structure fitting it for the life of an
and so
in endless other cases. But on the view of each
|
